digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at marketwatch.com

RIAA's Tactics Are Nearly as Bad as the Actions of Mobsters

marketwatch.com — Much like the New York mob family in "The Sopranos," the RIAA is trying to send a blunt message -- that downloading free music using peer-to-peer networks is wrong. Lawyers say that many college students are wrongfully targeted, and most are settling for several thousand dollars because they fear even bigger legal costs or fines down the road.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ipek, on 03/22/2008, -5/+40Can I be the first one to say it?...***** the RIAA!! That feels goood!
    • bdbr, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1FTA: "This is a form of tough love," said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the RIAA.

      Does anyone else find it offensive that their complete contempt for their customers is called "love"? Do these guys toss their own kids out on the street in the name of "love"?
  • mydigga, on 03/22/2008, -2/+17Uh, the Soprano's are a New JERSEY mob family, get it straight or pay the price ;)
    • Cyruss, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3Seriously. They were only affiliates of the NY bosses.
  • str3ama, on 03/22/2008, -3/+10as in 'they don't just go after you, they go after your family and your livelihood'
    copyright protection is one thing, but the RIAA goes to great lengths to not only make itself look it's a protection racket. They don't create the content, they don't publish it - they only involve themselves to harass 80 year old grandmothers.
  • spuncoke, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1Now I'm thinking about the ending of the final episode of The Sopranos
  • FeelThePain, on 03/22/2008, -9/+21***** THE RIAA, ***** APPLE, AND MOST OF ALL, ***** SONY!
    • vincentweber, on 03/22/2008, -10/+5And Microsoft, because Vista is full of it... DRM that is.
      • pigfister, on 03/22/2008, -2/+8Vista DRM was forced on it by hollywood (teh mpaa) to get a licence for HD material m$ had to agree to cripple their os, mostly because of Sony, FOX and Disney.

        http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/02/schneier-why- ...
        FTA: Schneier: Why Microsoft Sold Out Consumers in Vista
        Today, the PC industry needs Hollywood more than Hollywood needs the PC. Most consumers rely on traditional consumer electronics devices to view DVDs and TV content, but companies like Microsoft are betting on the converged digital home and desperately want a bigger piece of the media device market. Because of the DMCA, Microsoft has to get permission to build devices compatible with Hollywood's DRMed content. So when Hollywood demanded that Microsoft lard Vista with restrictions to access high-def DVD and digital cable content, the software giant was in a weak bargaining position.

        But as Bruce Schneier explains in a recent editorial (via BoingBoing), Vista's DRM may also be a play to turn the tables and turn Microsoft's platform into a distribution channel on which Hollywood relies:

        and here: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ...

        FTA: A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
        This is by design: as Jack Valenti, former head of the MPAA, put it, “If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy you buy another one”). It's obvious why this type of business model makes the pain of pushing content protection onto consumers so worthwhile for Microsoft since it practically constitutes a license to print money.

        The RIAA SOUNDEXCHANGE are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

        The MPAA are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
    • vincentweber, on 03/23/2008, -1/+0If Microsoft can force any kind of software on it's users, it can force DVI and Displayport. This is ***** and you know that. Bill Gates has always said that he believed that renting software (DRM) was the way he saw the future. They could have also just implemented DRM in Windows Media Player because it's so 'deeply integrated' in Windows, but eh...
  • banmaster, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8Nearly???!!
  • waterboy4453, on 03/22/2008, -2/+15I'm a freshman at UCLA, and I was recently busted for illegal downloading (twice). While I got caught for downloading House, the punishment is the same for music downloading: you're put into disciplinary probation for an unreasonable amount of time (until spring 2009 in my case), and if you get caught violating ANY university policy in that time period, the odds are highly in favor of suspension (at least one quarter), and there's even an opportunity for expulsion. It's ***** ridiculous, and the only reason things are that way is because the college pussied out and gave in to the RIAA's demands.

    So, what is happening to me and students like me is that our ability to simply continue to school and be a student has been threatened by the fact that I missed a TV show or wanted to acquire music in the easiest way possible. Fair, right?
    • imikedaman, on 03/22/2008, -2/+4If only you had known that House is available on fox.com.

      Anyway, I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but if you do something you know very well is illegal and you're caught for it, expect there to be consequences. Stop blaming everyone else for your own actions and learn some accountability. Stealing from a store (which I know a lot of people like to compare pirating to) would have resulted in hard jail time, where expulsion is a mere side effect.

      Even though you're just being scapegoated to beat the others into submission, I'd say you're getting off pretty easily compared to what the RIAA probably wants to do to you.
    • smotpoker1, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2shut down the net at the college if they continue to suck up to the mafiaa.
    • trer, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2You're young. One day you'll realize that committing the crime means doing the time and paying the fine. Now if you fully understand the consequences and still feel the benefits outweigh the potential costs, then more power to you. You got caught. Just take the medicine that comes along with it and next time try to figure out a better way to beat the system.
      • Travelsonic, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1You're old and you STILL haven't learned that ideologies and laws are never absolute?

        That's in part what the courts are for.
        • cliffski, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1and the courts agree with the RIAA.
          • Travelsonic, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1The recent news would tell me otherwise.
    • cliffski, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1tough ***** you whining little thief.
      If you cant do the time, dont do the crime.
      • Travelsonic, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2
        You assume somebody posting did a crime, and besides accusingly call them a lawbreaker you don't even get the crime right?

        Please, go die.go troll somewhere else.

  • zongamin, on 03/22/2008, -23/+3There's any easy way to avoid ever being caught - don't ***** steal music you retards.
    • Narcowski, on 03/22/2008, -5/+1Its not stealing if I either:
      A) Delete it after 24 hours
      or
      B) Pay for it later.
      • Travelsonic, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3No, it's not stealing because theft laws don't apply to copyright infringement cases in most cases.
      • cliffski, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1what moron told you that *****?
        • Travelsonic, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Narcowski is right, but for the wrong reasons. Basically, I actually agree that his reasoning is *****.
    • Ratteler, on 03/22/2008, -1/+59It's not stealing, because WE OWN the content. Article I, Section 8, Line 7. US Constitution.

      It's time to repeal copyright and take it away from them for abuse.
    • prophetpimp, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I don't steal music because its all crap these days. seriously the last time i even used a P2P client for music purpose was 1 year ago.
    • eddie72, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2The thing is if you have actually been following the RIAA tactics. Even if you own the CD and make a back up into a different format the RIAA wants to prosecute you.
  • vincentweber, on 03/22/2008, -2/+14RIAA: "It would be a shame if something happened to your family."
  • MAGZine, on 04/22/2008, -2/+21"Think illegal downloading free? Good. Because it is."
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2336/2219282175_83a ...
    • Ratteler, on 03/22/2008, -0/+9Nothing illegal about taking your property back from the people who stole it. The RIAA/MPAA have stolen our Public Domain by Illegally turning our elected officials against us, and changing the laws so they don't represent us.

      Taxation with out Representation is Tyranny!
      Using FEAR to enforce your will is Terrorism!

      Piracy = Patriotism.
    • Stalks, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1Pity they couldn't spell it right.
  • macinit1138, on 03/22/2008, -2/+6The leaders of the 'free' world flat out don't obey the law(s). If the most important individuals of the nation refuse to obey the law, then forget about the average joe taking these more abstract laws seriously. I read in a manual somewhere that leadership begins at the top.
  • jeffsback2223, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7I've often wondered if there was a way to bar the RIAA from filing lawsuits on behalf of the artist. Artists should pick and choose what they want online and shouldn't have to worry about the RIAA hording all the money from lawsuits they shouldn't have the rights to in the first place. I'm not against artists getting the money they deserve from their work. I'm against the RIAA going after easy targets for fast cash while stealing money from the artists, blocking innovation and ruining the education of the American youth all in the same breath.
    • Ratteler, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6Actually, until they bought a judge, the actual artist had to file charges and show up. That's the way it SHOULD be.
      Thanks to that legal precedent sent by a corrupt judge, they can now sue you for music that's not even from RIAA members.
      Other case precedents have allowed them to show no proof that the file was actually shared, and no proof that the file listed was even the actual song in question.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/04/21 ...

      Right now their fighting to keep their privacy invasion and wiretapping out of court as well. These would not only end the case, but open them up to criminal prosecution because the RIAA, and all the P2P tracking companies working for them, are violating wiretap laws.

      If I record you in a conversation with me admitting to the commission of a crime, it's not admissible in court. A PEER to PEER communication is the same thing. It's a private conversation.

      Further more no individual is allowed to do this. Only a law enforcement agent may legally monitor communication, and then, only with a warrant.

      This is why Piracy = Patriotism. These Terrorist are breaking the law to go after you, with the consent of our corrupt government.
      We have no choice faced with such a superior force BUT to resort to guerrilla tactics.
    • pigfister, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5lol the RIAA has claimed rights to ALL royalties on the web!

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870

      FTA: SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free. (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a7)

      So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b6). But, and this is a big "but," you only get royalties if you own the sound recording copyright. If you are signed to a major label, chances are you don’t. Even if you do own the copyright to your own recording of your own song, SoundExchange will collect Internet radio royalties for your song even if you don’t want them to do so.

      "The recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling regarding webcasting designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute to all nonmembers as well as its members. The Librarian of Congress issued his decision with rates and terms to govern the compulsory license for webcasters (Internet-only radio) and simulcastors (retransmissions)." (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b4)

      "SRCOs (sound recording copyright owners) are subject to a compulsory license for the use of their music...SoundExchange was established to administer the collection and distribution of royalties from such compulsory licenses taken by noninteractive streaming services that use satellite, cable or Internet methods of distribution."
      (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a4)

      Why do they always say the RIAA why not call them who they are

      The RIAA SOUNDEXCHANGE are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The MPAA are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
      • bjornski, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5SoundExchange is pure evil.

        Being able to FORCE paid royalties, on music they DO NOT REPRESENT is just legalized extortion and a back-handed way to keep small internet broadcasters "out of their league".
    • bdbr, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2The RIAA is a cartel of labels, and they generally DO own the rights to recorded works. The artists sign away their rights in the contract. If artists want any control over their music, they shouldn't sign with those labels in the first place.
      • bjornski, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Please, do some reading up on SoundExchange. They DO NOT have to represent your band to collect royalties for them. Even if you release an album SPECIFICALLY stating that you DO NOT want SoundExchange to collect any royalties from you, they can anyway. And will sue you to get them.
      • bdbr, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2I know about SoundExchange. I also know this article wasn't about them. I also know I was replying to a post about "if there was a way to bar the RIAA from filing lawsuits on behalf of the artist". So you digg me down for staying on topic?
  • adml_shake, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5Didn't someone think the same thing last year and try filing a RICO ACT lawsuit? And of course it got tossed out.
  • mr5150, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2Hey RIAA retards..you wanna peice of me, you wanna peice of me....***** you and your entire family of scumbag retards. Just try ***** and no law in any land will stop me from going goodfella's and pulp fiction on your asses. I am just one citation from flipping from jeckyll to hyde...just try me assholes.
    • bjornski, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Don't you have a $cientologist church to picket or something?
    • smotpoker1, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3dude spell check your coniption fits. it's piece not peice.BTW ***** the riaa.
  • pigfister, on 03/22/2008, -2/+6Why do they always say the RIAA why not call them who they are

    The RIAA SOUNDEXCHANGE are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The MPAA are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
    • Ratteler, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Because RIAA/MPAA is nine characters that everyone knows, and that other stuff is too long to write out.
      ...and no one would know what the hell SUWEDPF is.
      • pigfister, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3lol SUWEDPF, just call them globalist ass holes but ppl wouldn't know what companies to boycott to stop anti consumer!
  • DestroyFascism, on 03/22/2008, -2/+6Mebbe a protest of not purchasing any music anywhere for a month, we all know they DON'T pay the royalties to artists, just the lawyers and the association. This is a lawyers wet dream, threaten to sue a poor kid, parents have no means to defend, then if they do the American judges are so ***** and perverse they allow a party to sue for costs even if they lost the case! For ***** sake! there is no logic AT ALL in American courts! Whoever has money wins, even if they loose and whoever is gullible, defenseless and innocent or not does not have the judges or the law on their side! In any other country on this planet you could sue the RIAA the ISP and the Artists they are defending into their grave for what they are doing!

    What a pack of terds you American Judges are!
    • Ratteler, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4How about NEVER purchase movies or music again, until they fully restore our rights, pay reparations, and a system is in place to monitor them so the abuse can't happen again.

      Every dime you spend on music or movies will eventually go toward revoking your rights to free speech, privacy, and fair use.
  • pigfister, on 03/22/2008, -1/+10HERE is the biggest RIAA scam:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870

    FTA: SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free. (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a7)

    So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b6). But, and this is a big "but," you only get royalties if you own the sound recording copyright. If you are signed to a major label, chances are you don’t. Even if you do own the copyright to your own recording of your own song, SoundExchange will collect Internet radio royalties for your song even if you don’t want them to do so.

    "The recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling regarding webcasting designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute to all nonmembers as well as its members. The Librarian of Congress issued his decision with rates and terms to govern the compulsory license for webcasters (Internet-only radio) and simulcastors (retransmissions)." (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b4)

    "SRCOs (sound recording copyright owners) are subject to a compulsory license for the use of their music...SoundExchange was established to administer the collection and distribution of royalties from such compulsory licenses taken by noninteractive streaming services that use satellite, cable or Internet methods of distribution."
    (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a4)

    Why do they always say the RIAA why not call them who they are

    The RIAA SOUNDEXCHANGE are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The MPAA are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
    • Ratteler, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5OK pigfister... we only need it once per topic. ;-)
      Showed ya da love anyway. :-D
  • wilf_brim, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4"The RIAA has no interest in suing innocent people". Well, half true. The fact is that the RIAA and their henchmen (the so-called "settlement agents" that are really working for one party) don't give a crap is you are guilty or not. They assume you are, aren't interesting in any reason why you aren't, and just want their money.
    Sadly, most cave. Either because they are guilty, or simple economics. They will settle for 3 grand, the costs of a defense are many times that. This is a simple shakedown. It isn't fair to Tony to make the comparison, even he was slightly more sophisticated than that.
  • smacksaw, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8You know what's amazing to me is that all of these people will get together and support Anonymous against $cientology - a group that will probably never impact Anon's life, while many fellow Anons are being blackmailed by the RIAA.

    Instead of spending $10 on a mask, why doesn't some enterprising law firm put together a legal defence fund for every university in the US and people donate to the one closest to them? The RIAA wins because people can't fight. If all of these lawsuits ever came to the court system, they would clog it so badly things would change.

    Here's an example: I fight all of my traffic tickets. On more than one occasion I have seen commissioners dismiss tickets because there are too many people contesting them and it's too much paperwork and time. If everyone contested their driving infractions, the system would break.

    The RIAA doesn't actually have the money to litigate every case. We know many of their cases are suspect. If enough people counter-sued them, they would be bankrupt.

    Anon, you're not my personal army, but you are an Army of Anon. I suggest breaking the RIAA if you want to put your newfound skills to use on something really worthwhile.
  • DeFex, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4You think they are bad. theres another group which demands money from you, and if you do not pay them they will steal your goods or throw you out of your home. or even lock you in a cage. They are called "the government"
    They take that money and waste most of it.
  • sniffer, on 03/22/2008, -1/+6RIAA or MPAA can come after me. Mainly for 2 reasons:
    1: I don't live anywhere near the US.
    2: i'm broke :(
    HAHAHA! ***** THE RIAA AND THE MPAA!!
  • smotpoker1, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Anon lets do some more good lets break the RIAA mafiaa and its thug lawyers.
  • eosp, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Except that the mob has morals and honor.
  • hilikus34, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1I would be grate if someone would indite these criminal douchebags for the countless law they have broken. ***** the MAFIAA!!!
  • bdbr, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2There really needs to be an awareness campaign of who the RIAA is and what they do. They're not just a bunch of lawyers, they're a cartel of record labels. When you see the actual court cases, its not "RIAA v _____", its "Universal v _____" (or some other record RIAA label).

    People (particularly college students) need to know that they're at greater risk when they download music from those labels. They need to know that they're funding this kind of ***** whenever they buy music from those labels. College is the time for students to start giving real thought to ethics, and learn that the right thing to do is SHUN unethical companies like the RIAA labels.
  • ianconley, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3What about the action of people illegally downloading music? What's that akin to?
    • Travelsonic, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Potentially copyright infringement, potentially not copyright infringement.
      • Travelsonic, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Depending on whether it is proven that downloading music illegally has occured first of all.
  • solid12345, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2How can college students pay for music when all their money was spent on 5 dollar cafeteria pizza slices and a 2,000 dollar bar tab.
  • BlackJackJester, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2In a strange way, I wish they'd target me. Being a computer engineer, I could bury them. But they won't, because the way I pirate is untraceable.
  • lodwar, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1This reminds me of the book "Accelerando"(charles stross) when RIAA IS the mob and sends hitmen to collect royalties and coerce copyright signovers . Truth is stranger than fiction.
  • itisfritz, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1If the world were and office the riaa would be dwight
  • shdwsclan, on 03/22/2008, -2/+0Im a college student.
    I rarely have the desire to get ANY music.
    I'm not an american idiot (like most college students) that needs earphones playing music from an ipod 300% of the time.
    I have no desire for 5000 watt speaker system in my car, the stock setup is perfectly sufficient.
    I have Dish Network and can listen to Sirius at free will.
    I only have 1.3 gb of MP3s that i NEVER listen to.
    Of those 1.3 mp3, 80% of them were downloaded during the time of napster.
    10% are rips of disks I have.
    10% are files collected recently, mostly soundtracks of movies.

    Through the 3 years of college i have complete, i only downloaded 10 mp3, all from p2p and none of the titles were from an RIAA backed label, a third weren't even in English.

    For me to actually start buying music again, you have to start treating the customer as a customer.
    I want a redbook compliant CD, that means NO crazy drm. It should be double pressed, like a dvd and should be signed by the artist, by hand. I would gladly $100 for such a disk signed by a good artist, not the BS artists you seem to endorse today.

    Also, finally, you have to look at the target audiences.
    Rap is crap and rightly so. You target audience of poor blacks doesnt have the money for food, so what makes you think they have the money for cd, much less mp3, much less a computer, much less access to internet. If they have any music, its definetly bootlegged.

    Teledisks-teledisks-teledisks
    Those are a great european invention for hit singles.
    Quality, not quantity.
  • JP42, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1This is the new RIAA business model. They've given up adapting to the new distribution medium and instead now profit from suing college students. It can only last so long though as eventually these college students will become the next lawmakers and corporate CEO's.
  • Arcueid01, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I see the necessity for legal action because this is truly a problem. However, I find it dispicable that they target college student and force many of them to drop out. The flawed business model is the problem here. Gone are the days are true "artists". The MPAA and the RIAA are alike. They endorse a systematic approach to creating what they call art. It is so systematic. They find an attractive person who can either somewhat act or hold a tone. They craft them a script or song because the "artist" is incapable and uncreative enough to create their own. They pump a bunch of money into advertising and radio play/movie advertisements. After the media blitz dumbed up people are coming in droves to get their garbage. The current business model would work if they could find artists that actually had talent and produced someone that people wanted to collect. Everyone buys CDs of their favorite bands.

    I think it is right to buy CD or MP3s. It is to support the band. I don't like the tactics of the RIAA or the MPAA and I certainly agree with the author of this article that their tactics are certainly likened to organized criminals from the stand point that they like to intimidate. Whether or not their actions are per se illegal is another thing. I am not a judge so I can't say whether they are or not. The US copyright laws are very board which gives organizations like this much leeway to interpret.

    Those who chose to download have to pay the consequences. If you don't like it write to your representatives or better yet call them so you are blacklisted and tell them you want change.
  • pokedex, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0nearly?!? it's a tight-wounded cartel driven to force crap and fear down consumers' throats. i guess all our music are belong to them

    www.allyourmusicarebelongtous.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.